Not sure if this rule applies to all cases, but page 79 says that character may roll dice other than d20s to attack (multiple attacks or two-weapon fighting), but "A critical hit still requires a result of a natural 20 or the character's threat range . . . secondary dice results do not score critical hits as often."

I have been running it as NO unless stated otherwise (halfling two weapon fighting for example). That may somehow seem like punishing D30 rollers but I don't see too many times where a D30 is rolled for skills or combat attack rolls. I'm sure someone will reply to prove me wrong.

I also agree that it has to be a natural 20 to be an automatic hit and a critical success. When rolling a die that is further down the chain, like a d16 or d14, then rolling the max number on that die (16 on a d16) will get you a critical success IF that roll also meets or beats the number necessary for the roll. So, by rolling a die smaller than a d20, the player is giving up the chance at an automatic hit, but still has a chance at a critical success.

1 is always a miss; warriors and dwarves (only) can burn Luck to prevent it from being a fumble.

The book says:

A higher-level character with multiple attacks may roll an action die other than 1d20. Similarly, a character attacking with two weapons may roll a die other than 1d20. A critical hit still requires a result of a natural 20 or the character’s threat range, as detailed below – secondary dice results do not score critical hits as often.

and

When rolling dice greater than d20, a crit occurs based on the die’s highest possible results. For example, when attacking with a d24, a crit occurs on a 24. A warrior with an improved threat range adjusts accordingly. For example, a threat range of 19-20 while rolling on a d24 becomes 23-24, with only the result of 24 being an automatic hit.

So, when using a larger die, adjust accordingly. When using a smaller die, too bad, so sad, no crit for you! Unless, of course, the rules explicitly state otherwise for a specific case, or the Judge deems otherwise, because the Judge trumps the rules.

Spot on sir! I must keep that in mind when people discuss rules on this site. Officially RC is right however.

I know that WOtC-D&D makes use of "Rule 0", but it always seemed an anaemic way to go about it to me. Perhaps this is because so much of player agency in those games relies not on responding to the fictional milieu, but on manipulating the rules constructs, so that what was normal GMing judgement in TSR-D&D became "bad DMing" in WotC-D&D.

It is so refreshing to see the idea that the Judge is able to fold, spindle, or mutilate the rules....not only stated, but stated in more than one place, in more than one case, and in all ways reinforced!

Call me ignorant (you wont be the first or last) but you keep refering to player agency (you mentioned it in another thread).I just want to know what your definition of it is. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I seriously find myself in the dark on this. Is it players taking more of an active role in the game other than simply rolling dice when the DM says so? That's the only thing I can think of.

On the subject at hand, I do try to explain to my players why I feel I should trump the rules either in their favor or not.

Call me ignorant (you wont be the first or last) but you keep refering to player agency (you mentioned it in another thread).I just want to know what your definition of it is. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I seriously find myself in the dark on this. Is it players taking more of an active role in the game other than simply rolling dice when the DM says so? That's the only thing I can think of.

On the subject at hand, I do try to explain to my players why I feel I should trump the rules either in their favor or not.

How players make decisions, what their choices can affect within the context of the game. For instance, in a railroad, player agency is constrained to decisions that can be made while remaining on the tracks. 3e allows for great player agency in creating and shaping characters -- so much so that it becomes the game for some. DCC RPG enhances player agency in terms of making decisions from the context of the game milieu (from the point of view of the character), while 4e restricts player agency very much to its rules structures (so much so that it is difficult to know what is happening from the point of view of the characters in some circumstances).

(Deciding that X happens regardless of what the players choose or do also undermines player agency, as it makes the value of their choices illusory....as when a GM decides that X lies either right or left, regardless of which path the PCs take.)

There is also GM agency. For instance, WotC-D&D has long combat times that cause a disproportionate amount of the average session to be spent within specific combats, which limits GM agency in terms of presenting minor encounters, especially as levels increase. DCC RPG vastly increases GM agency in terms of presentation, scenario creation, and world design.

1 is always a miss; warriors and dwarves (only) can burn Luck to prevent it from being a fumble.

The book says:

A higher-level character with multiple attacks may roll an action die other than 1d20. Similarly, a character attacking with two weapons may roll a die other than 1d20. A critical hit still requires a result of a natural 20 or the character’s threat range, as detailed below – secondary dice results do not score critical hits as often.

and

When rolling dice greater than d20, a crit occurs based on the die’s highest possible results. For example, when attacking with a d24, a crit occurs on a 24. A warrior with an improved threat range adjusts accordingly. For example, a threat range of 19-20 while rolling on a d24 becomes 23-24, with only the result of 24 being an automatic hit.

So, when using a larger die, adjust accordingly. When using a smaller die, too bad, so sad, no crit for you! Unless, of course, the rules explicitly state otherwise for a specific case, or the Judge deems otherwise, because the Judge trumps the rules.

RC

What about fumbles? The chances for those also increases with a smaller die.

On the subject at hand, I do try to explain to my players why I feel I should trump the rules either in their favor or not.

Optimally, the players should not be aware of the rules at a level where they can tell when you are not using them. This is GM skill that requires experience and practice. But it can be done within any ruleset no matter how heavy or light the ruleset is.

What about fumbles? The chances for those also increases with a smaller die.

That's correct. If you take more than one action (where you have to roll more than one die), or you do something that you are not as good at (so as to take a die type penalty), you are more apt to have a mishap.

I've thought about monster fumbles some more and have created my own set of rules using the regular fumble table as a guide:

MONSTER FUMBLES

Monsters can fumble when attacking, too. A natural 1 on an attack roll by a monster automatically misses and the monster must roll on either the regular fumble table (for humanoid monsters possibly wearing armor) or on the following Monster Fumble table (for unarmored, non-humanoid monsters).

A monster always rolls a d7 fumble die when rolling on the Monster Fumble table given below.

As with critical hits scored by a monster, an enemy PC’s Luck modifier always alters a monster’s fumble roll. A positive Luck modifier increases the monster’s roll (causing it to suffer a worse fumble), whereas a negative modifier reduces the monster’s roll (thereby resulting in a less-severe fumble).

Table: Monster Fumbles

Roll Result

0 or less The monster misses wildly but miraculously causes no other damage.

1 The monster’s incompetent blow makes it the laughingstock of the PCs.

2 The monster trips but may recover with a DC 10 Ref save; otherwise it must spend the next round prone.

3 One of the monster’s natural weapons is damaged: it breaks a claw, cracks a tooth, or chips a beak. It takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls with this natural weapon until it is repaired, heals, or grows back. Note that the damage may be permanent.

4 The monster trips and falls, wasting this action. It is prone and must use an action to stand next round.

5 The monster stumbles and leaves itself wide open to attack. The next enemy that attacks it receives a +2 bonus on its attack roll.

6 The monster’s wild swing leaves it off balance, causing it to take a -4 penalty on its next attack roll.

7 The monster inadvertently swings at one randomly determined ally within range. It must make an attack roll against that ally using the same attack die that it just attempted to use.

8 The monster trips badly and falls hard, suffering 1d3 damage in the process. It is prone and must use an action to stand next round.

9 The monster somehow manages to wound itself, taking normal damage.

10+ The monster accidentally strikes itself for normal damage plus an extra 1 point. In addition, it falls on its back and is unable to right itself until it makes a DC 16 Agility check.

The context I've always seen for Gonzo implies "wacky" or "over the top" gaming. If you run a game where "I can't believe this" happens a lot, it's probably Gonzo.

The earliest use of the term that I can recall goes back to Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign from the early 1970's, where he would run a traditional fantasy game but then mix in robots and phaser pistols and stuff like that. His game was referred to as Gonzo.

"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." -- Gary Gygax"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" -- Dave Arneson

On a somewhat related note, I play that a "20" is always a success. This includes saving throws against spellchecks with astronomically high results. I believe that there's always a chance of success (even if it's only a 5%) one.

I've not yet run into a situation where a PC rolled a d30 for a saving throw, but if I did and the spellcheck result was so high that even with his save bonuses he had no chance to succeed, I'd probably let a natural "30" indicate success as well (but not a natural "20").

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum